Science Friction_ Where the Known Meets the Unknown - Michael Shermer [141]
Figure 14.5. A content analysis of Gould’s three hundred essays by primary, secondary, and tertiary emphasis
What is Gould primarily interested in writing about in his essays? While evolutionary theory and the history and philosophy of science once again dominate (comprising 75 percent of the total), they have flipflopped in dominance from the totals in figure 14.5. That is, the history of science and science studies (which includes philosophy of science) now overwhelm all other subjects, nearly doubling evolutionary theory and totaling almost more than all other categories combined. What is Gould up to when he blends the history and philosophy of science and science studies with evolutionary theory?
Figure 14.6. A content analysis of Gould’s three hundred essays by primary subject emphasis
Part of an answer can be found in an analysis of Gould’s historical time frame, and especially in figure 14.7, which presents a breakdown of Gould’s essays on the history and philosophy of science by primary, secondary, and tertiary emphasis.28
Out of the 300 essays, a remarkable 220 (73 percent) contain a significant historical element, with half (109) in the nineteenth century and nearly a third (64) in the twentieth. Since Gould’s primary historical interest is the history of evolutionary theory, we should not be surprised by this ratio since the past two centuries have been the theory’s heyday. Yet it is also important to note that the history of evolutionary theory is bracketed in figure 14.7 by the philosophy of science on the right and the relationship between culture and science on the left. All other interests pale by comparison, revealing Gould’s intense interest in the interaction of history, theory, philosophy, and culture. For Gould they are inseparable. Doing science also means doing the history and philosophy of science, and as a historian and philosopher of science Gould is intensely interested in the interaction between individual scientists and their culture. This is why there are, in these 220 historical essays, no fewer than seventy-six significant biographical portraits, a number of which include original contributions to the historical record. For example, Gould conducted a thorough analysis of Leonardo’s paleontological observations and his theory of the earth as presented in the Leicester Codex, showing that he was no out-of-time visionary but was instead deeply wedded to the premodern world-view of the sixteenth century.29
Figure 14.7. A content analysis of Gould’s three hundred essays by primary, secondary, and tertiary emphasis in the history and philosophy of science
Gould’s work in the history of science can also be seen quantitatively in the annual Current Bibliographies of the History of Science Society journal Isis. Although some years are sparse, such as 1991 and 1992 with just three references each and 1997 with only two, other years show Gould outpublishing all other historians with, for example, 24 references in 1986, 16 references in 1988, and 12 in 1989. Gould’s overall average reference rate in the Isis Bibliography indexes between 1977 and 1999 is 7.34 (169 references in twenty-three years). No other historian comes close to Gould in generating this much history of science, and these figures, conjoined with the rest of this analysis, support Ronald Numbers’s equation of Gould with Kuhn as one of the two most influential historians of science of the twentieth century. Of course, quantity does not necessarily equate to quality, and the fact that during his life Gould never developed a cadre of history of science students in the same manner as other professional historians of science may mean that his influence will come posthumously (Gould died on May 19, 2002). To that extent, then, this paper is both prescriptive and descriptive. (Gould reiterated to me his continued frustration over the years that he did not seem to be taken seriously by historians of science, the one community he